You do realise that you seriously appear to be saying that the nation of South Africa and it's people would have been better served if the struggle to end apartheid and then the nation had not be led by someone like Nelson Mandela but instead someone more like a SA equivalent of Nicos Sampson, who believed the only 'fair' solution required driving the 'foreign invaders' into the sea ?

GreekIslandGirl wrote: It would have been better for South Africa to have removed white man back to Europe,

Nothing would have granted, morally and legally, a white South African community a separate and equal right to 'self determination' in their own shared homeland, more than an attempt by Black South Africans to unilaterally impose this, in the eyes of anyone except a fanatic.

Bullshit! A non-native minority which doesn't have its own territory can not have self-determination no matter what. You simply can't have two separate self-determinations on the same piece of land! If the blacks had done what you say it would still not be as bad as what Turkey did to the Armenians and all the other peoples that they eliminated. The Nazis killed 6 million Jews (more than the total number of whites in SA) and the new Jewish state was established by taking part of Palestine... not part of Germany. The Jews that continue to live in Germany are a minority with the same rights as always. Such minorities can NEVER have a self-determination right, and if unlike the Jews in Germany and the Armenians in Turkey, the reason they are attacked is because they insist on oppressing the native majority then they have no moral ground to demand anything at all ... let alone "self-determination". History is filled with native people revolting against oppressors and their settlers. And not just ancient history but even more recent. Here is an example from the Zanzibar Revolution from 1964 where the native people revolted against the Arab minority:

The Zanzibar Revolution occurred in 1964 and led to the overthrow of the Sultan of Zanzibar and his mainly Arab government by local African revolutionaries. Zanzibar was an ethnically diverse state consisting of a number of islands off the east coast of Tanganyika which had been granted independence by Britain in 1963. In a series of parliamentary elections preceding independence, the Arab minority succeeded in retaining the hold on power it had inherited from Zanzibar's former existence as an overseas territory of Oman. Frustrated by under-representation in Parliament despite winning 54% of the vote in the July 1963 election, the mainly African Afro-Shirazi Party (ASP) allied itself with the left-wing Umma Party, and early on the morning of 12 January 1964 ASP member John Okello mobilised around 600–800 revolutionaries on the main island of Unguja (Zanzibar Island). Having overrun the country's police force and appropriated their weaponry, the insurgents proceeded to Zanzibar Town where they overthrew the Sultan and his government. Reprisals against Arab and South Asian civilians on the island followed; the resulting death toll is disputed, with estimates ranging from several hundred to 20,000. The moderate ASP leader Abeid Karume became the country's new president and head of state, and positions of power were granted to Umma party members.

The new government's apparent communist ties concerned Western governments. As Zanzibar lay within the British sphere of influence, the British government drew up a number of intervention plans. However, the feared communist government never materialised, and because British and United States citizens were successfully evacuated these plans were not put into effect. Meanwhile, the communist bloc powers of China, East Germany and the Soviet Union established friendly relations with the new government by recognising the country and sending advisors. Karume succeeded in negotiating a merger of Zanzibar with Tanganyika to form the new nation of Tanzania; an act judged by contemporary media to be an attempt to prevent communist subversion of Zanzibar. The revolution ended 200 years of Arab dominance in Zanzibar, and is commemorated on the island each year with anniversary celebrations and a public holiday.

You think the Arabs have a legal and moral right to self-determination in Zanzibar? I think not! And I don't think their opinion was asked when Zanzibar united with Tanganyika either! And by the way ... over 20% of White South Africans were forced to leave from South Africa during the decade after the end of Apartheid (now some of them are returning). Leaving is something they have the right to do... claiming separate "self-determination" is NOT something they have the right to do ... no matter how bad they are treated. And just to be clear I do not support the harm of ANY minority. I think people of all minorities should have their full human and minority rights. But native majorities also have rights ... like the right to rule their homeland... and when this right is oppressed then the oppressors have no right to complain when the majority revolts!

Most borders in Africa were artificially made by European colonists. Sometimes even dividing the land of native tribes in two! Their homeland is the land of their ancestors regardless of what borders some foreigners decided to create. And if they wanted to unite between them or change their borders they can do it... they are not obligated to obey the borders that foreigners created (even though they are already used to them... so it is unlikely that they will change them)

Oh my gawd..Sotos, my dear friend, would you believe me if I told you that the majority of the Southern tip of Africa was uninhabited by blacks when the the first settlers arrived from the Netherlands and France?There was no demarcated 'African' territory that the whites 'invaded'.

Cap wrote:Oh my gawd..Sotos, my dear friend, would you believe me if I told you that the majority of the Southern tip of Africa was uninhabited by blacks when the the first settlers arrived from the Netherlands and France?There was no demarcated 'African' territory that the whites 'invaded'.

Considering that Africa has been inhabited for a long long time and considering how relatively recently the Europeans colonized it, then that "tip" must be a very small tip for your story to be possible But fine... I already said that you need your own territory to have self-determination. Hypothetically speaking, if whites had such territory, then they could have their self-determination on that "tip"... not on the whole SA.

I already said that you need your own territory to have self-determination

I totally agree.At least you don't come across as completely ignorant like GiGs

I am quite possibly the most knowledgeable person in this forum What I said is actually pretty obvious. Take for example all those groups that seek self-determination... e.g. Kurds or Catalans... they all have their own territory. It would be STUPID for e.g. the Jews in Germany or the blacks in the USA etc to ask for "self-determination". They can't do this. NO MATTER WHAT! In the UK they can have a referendum so they Scottish people can decide for themselves ... because the Scottish have their own separate land and so they have self-determination. But the Muslim minority in the UK doesn't have self-determination and they can never have no matter what.

Erolz should really explain to us how a group can have self-determination without its own land. Maybe on an extremely limited way? Please explain the "physics" of how this would work. Give us ONE example where both the majority and a minority have full separate self-determination on the exact same territory!